If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: CCD Research

Originally Posted by sqkcrk

I gotta say that I don't respond well to name calling. For instance "you three amigos" and "Beewasher". Like the "old farts" comments from another newcomer, such name calling implies a certain disdain, or an unestablished and assumed familiarity between the parties, for those one may disagree with.

I feel likewise but that is something that seems to be common around here and not reserved to the newcomers... from the use of terms like "beehavers" to "beewashers" and it usually comes across to me as more of an attempt to ridicule than to inform or correspond, but then that attitude here seems to extend beyond just the name calling.

Re: CCD Research

Originally Posted by ArtSmart

"It's a question not of whether pesticides kill insects, because of course they do, but rather a question of which chemical is the least damaging to bees." and another gentlemen was wringing his hands agonizing between his grain harvest and his bees. This is a perfect illustration for my statement of conflict of interests. If you are purely a beekeeper you won't be satisfied with the idea of anybody using anything that is "least" harmful for your bees. On the other hand, it you have vested interest in making money of the crop you would have interest in getting adequate return on your investment in which scenario bees become just one very small part of the equation. By itself it is neither bad or good. There can be numerous explanations about hardships of the modern farmer, the public dependance on the fruits of your labor, staying abreast with progress etc. However all that doesn't change the fact that you are impartial in the matter. It is a fact. And as John Adams said: "Facts are stubborn things"

Jim's statement is far less impartial than some on here. How can anyone ONLY be concerned about their little piece of the big picture? Beekeeping is not done in a vacuum, it's one little part of the whole.

Re: CCD Research

I wouldn't characterize being both a farmer and a beekeeper as the kind of conflict of interest where one needs to recluse oneself from a debate.

However, I would say that there's a definite conflict of interest when one has relationships for consideration with Monsanto, Bayer, etc., and then misrepresents, or suppresses, the facts of a very controversial issue.

Jim and Ian aren't in the wrong.

I have no mental reservations when stepping up to defend Alex Lu's right to scientific inquiry that's free from 'conflicted' interference.

Re: CCD Research

Do you see Randy Oliver's search for the facts as advocating the use of pesticides?

I don't believe I said anything to that effect. Especially considering the fact that I don't know any Randy Olivers. If he wants to search for facts - more power to him.

Originally Posted by sqkcrk

Do you grow all of your own food?

It is irrelevant to what I said. And I believe I already stated that. Whatever I eat or not eat, however the circumstances are difficult for farmers, whether we all going to die of starvation if farmers stop using pesticides - all that is completely irrelevant to what I said. I said that a person who have financial interest in any matter will be always biased toward protecting that interest. I believe the statement is pretty straightforward and easy to understand even for a child (not calling you a child here though)

Lastly sorry to call you an amigo. No disdain was intended (one of my favorite movies after all) neither I'm familiar with you well enough to come to the conclusion that you are an amigo material.

Re: CCD Research

Originally Posted by Barry

Jim's statement is far less impartial than some on here.

First of all I never said that my statements are not biased. Second, the bias of my message doesn't automatically make somebody's opinion less biased. This is not like when you were a kid and said: "I know you are but who am I?" it made the argument of your opponent of less effect. Wouldn't you agree?

Re: CCD Research

Originally Posted by ArtSmart

: "It's a question not of whether pesticides kill insects, because of course they do, but rather a question of which chemical is the least damaging to bees." and another gentlemen was wringing his hands agonizing between his grain harvest and his bees.

Hardly wring his hands, very pratical man..... thinking completly thru I take it then there are no bug killers in your house? no termite sprays in your ground, no ant poisens in the cupboards? Agriculture is a huge and complex issue. With worldwide implications. Right now Neonics are not proven to be a problem given the 3 million hives in the US, and the options are EXTREMLY ugly.......
You said you don't want to be part of the pictire, but yet here you are, painting away.....

Re: CCD Research

What's interesting to me is that while Bayer and Monsanto have made a big deal about their newly announced partnership to "tackle the varroa problem" why aren't they teaming up to investigate CCD?

Maybe because A) they're afraid that the research will show their products are a big part of the cause and B) that they're trying to pin all the blame for CCD on varroa so as to keep the $3 billion a year in neonics sales.......

Re: CCD Research

Both Randy and Jerry were throwing 'tomatoes' at the study before it was published.

They both crossed the line into Scientific Supression, and both now have clear Bayer ties.

They're both 'BeeWashers'.

Nope, they can't get away with it.

I hate to go personal, but I just discovered that University from which beekeeper graduated with bachelor degree (UC Irvine) have no entomology Department. I was not able to find if such Department existed at the time of graduation. Nothing personal.

Re: CCD Research

Originally Posted by gmcharlie

Right now Neonics are not proven to be a problem given the 3 million hives in the US

Right here you nailed it. You are willing to point the gun into the woods and pull the trigger saying it is not proven that there are people there. Now consider a possibility that there is somebody there. There is always a chance. How come the reason and logic that makes sense in every day's life is thrown away in the case of our food supply? When something doesn't make sense more often than not money is involved. The fact that something is not proven doesn't mean that it is not true. You are willing to take a chance with other people health and the whole balance of nature because you have your money on the line. Which we all can relate to, but be honest, it is a chance, science has nothing to do with it. And everybody knows that in the long run it is a loosing bet including you. It is just a matter of time. But when (or if) it is proven without any doubt, they will come out with some new poison and there will be no proven link with some other environmental disaster and this particular poison for another 10 years.

Re: CCD Research

Let me see if I understand. If I state that I don't believe Dr Lu's research proves that imadacloprid causes CCD then that means I am gambling with people's safety and I am the one motivated by greed? Im not asking anyone for a single dollar. Must I remind you who has the deep pockets in this discussion? It sure as heck ain't varroa destructor.

"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

Re: CCD Research

Originally Posted by cerezha

I hate to go personal, but I just discovered that University from which beekeeper graduated with bachelor degree (UC Irvine) have no entomology Department. I was not able to find if such Department existed at the time of graduation. Nothing personal.

I believe he has a graduate degree in perhaps marine biology if memory serves me correctly. Most importantly he has decades of beekeeping experience to go with his background. Do you feel that in some way discredits his work?

"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

Re: CCD Research

So neonics get banned in the US, then what? Winter losses decrease as neonics levels in the hives decrease?

What is going to replace the neonics? Maybe farmers will go back to the good ol'days of the '70's and '80's Jim Lyon remembers so fondly.

I think some people feel the world should ban all pesticides just because they have bees now. Maybe those farmers would suggest you keep your bees on your property?

The question is not whether neonics, or any insecticide, will kill bees. The question is which ones have the smallest environmental impact. In the long-run, neonics impact bees much less than many of the insectides used in the past.

Re: CCD Research

Originally Posted by jim lyon

... Do you feel that in some way discredits his work?

This is what makes me uncomfortable - he just have no "work" published yet. He criticized other works, but he did not publish anything in peer-reviewed journals. In science it does not work this way. But, since he entered "scientific territory" he should obey our laws If anybody wanted to criticize already published results, s/he must perform his/her own research and publish it in peer-reviewed journal. In such article the author has all rights to criticize others as long as it is based on hie/her own research. What really makes me uneasy is his famous "argument" that all results were not tested in the field and therefore have no credibility. But the thing is that nearly 99% of modern science is performed in the Lab. Even Monsanto grows their GMOs on the roof of their building - definitely not a "field". In the Lab we could use our sensitive equipment and control conditions. Except may be "earth sciences", most of our results have been obtained in the Lab. Even "fisheries" Mr. Oliver used (?) for his Masters Diploma were artificial and located on the territory of the University! I do not buy this argument at all!

Re: CCD Research

Originally Posted by Dave Burrup

... I have been involved in research for almost 40 years. The Harvard study is so poorly done that it is only a black eye for Harvard. ...

Dave, could you specify, what is wrong in this study? If you are a scientist, you must know that empty words mean nothing. It would be valuable for all beesource members to see an expert view on this paper.